• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

LutonSpurs said:
Being pro Brexit and anti bringing Utilities back to govt/British ownership is a funny oxymoron. Basically a large segment of weird Tory minded folks in this country who think well managed govt owned Utilities is communism.
Click to expand...

I think you mean paradox? However, I feel that a large number of such pro brexiters welcome trade on a global scale and not getting trapped into a protectionist bloc.

If you grew up in the 70’s and 80’s it would have been hard to miss the massive power of the left weighing industry and competitiveness down.

So both views are actually consistent for many.

Another paradox is that without Thatcherism we would never have needed the open door policy for economic migration.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Being pro Brexit and anti bringing Utilities back to govt/British ownership is a funny oxymoron. Basically a large segment of weird Tory minded folks in this country who think well managed govt owned Utilities is communism.
Click to expand...
I dislike the whole ownership argument. And politicians like the polarisation of the argument as it detracts from the key analysis and questions that require to be carried out and asked:
1) Are services being provided to an adequate standard?
2) Are they being provided on a fair value basis for the standard being delivered?
3) Are they being reviewed and upgraded at an adequate pace to cope with change?
The actual ownership of the service delivery is a complete irrelevance for me.

It's a bit like "inequality". The real question is about whether living standards and quality of life at the bottom are adequate. If the answer is that the worst off people in your society still enjoy a positive and high standard of life, it is irrelevant to me how that compares to the most well off.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I dislike the whole ownership argument. And politicians like the polarisation of the argument as it detracts from the key analysis and questions that require to be carried out and asked:
1) Are services being provided to an adequate standard?
2) Are they being provided on a fair value basis for the standard being delivered?
3) Are they being reviewed and upgraded at an adequate pace to cope with change?
The actual ownership of the service delivery is a complete irrelevance for me.

It's a bit like "inequality". The real question is about whether living standards and quality of life at the bottom are adequate. If the answer is that the worst off people in your society still enjoy a positive and high standard of life, it is irrelevant to me how that compares to the most well off.
Click to expand...
There's lots of fundamental issues about ownership, not just the quality of output. Who should own the nation's natural resources and infrastructure - its own people or foreign companies and governments? And who should get the profits it makes - reinvested nationally, or bled out?
 
Gutter Boy said:
There's lots of fundamental issues about ownership, not just the quality of output. Who should own the nation's natural resources and infrastructure - its own people or foreign companies and governments? And who should get the profits it makes - reinvested nationally, or bled out?
Click to expand...
These are ultimately public services that involve central outsource contracts managed by the government. I.e. with privatised public services, it is within the government's gift to determine which private operator obtains a contract. In terms of profits being "bled out" again this is an emotive and politicised characterisation. It is within a government's gift to tax profits and attach a premium if required to corporation tax related to certain sectors. They do this with oil and gas for example. And depending on the operator the shareholders the profits may be "bled to" will often be institutional investors (i.e. the public's pension funds).

So while I accept there's an element of the considerations you articulate I don't think it detracts from the fact that you can get hrear to sh*t services in both public and private sectors and that the ownership does not resolve or create problems. Proactive management of service provision by government and civil service is key to high quality service provision at fair value to the tax payer. For example, failures at Thames Water over decades get blamed on Thames Water, which fails to acknowledge that government had the gift to penalise Thames Water, remove from contract, impose terms or do whatever was necessary to improve service provision and that ultimately when outsourcing a service, the outsourcer is still ultimately responsible for the standard of service provided.

And I have said that privatisation has been convenient for successive govts because when you outsource water to Thames Water and say "you can only charge so much" when lack of investment means sewer water has to be pumped into the sea it's bad old fat cat corporate greed to blame and not lack of infrastructure investment by govt. Even now govt are hiding behind privatisation in authorising huge bill hikes to pay for infrastructure upgrades....
 
Gutter Boy said:
There's always been a legitimate Lexit movement. Brexit was Green Party policy until fairly recently, it only got taken over by Farage and co. in the last decade or so.

Economic localism (alongside social internationalism) is the only way this planet survives.
Click to expand...
Not that recently. They saw sense before the original referendum, and I predict one day you too may admit Brexit was a massive mistake.
www.theguardian.com

Green party 'loud and proud' about backing Britain in Europe

Caroline Lucas says Brexit would threaten UK’s environmental protection and rights at work
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I generally agree with your frequent point that countries should step back from the wanton destruction caused to the planet by globalisation, but some issues require supranational bodies, and the body in the locale is the EU. And it looks like it is the only one that still believes in liberal democracy, which is good.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Being pro Brexit and anti bringing Utilities back to govt/British ownership is a funny oxymoron. Basically a large segment of weird Tory minded folks in this country who think well managed govt owned Utilities is communism.
Click to expand...
It is always about the money, so free from EU regs and free to privatise the brick out of everything to bleed it dry is as Tory as it gets.
 
Last edited:
Rorschach said:
Not that recently. They saw sense before the original referendum, and I predict one day you too may admit Brexit was a massive mistake.
www.theguardian.com

Green party 'loud and proud' about backing Britain in Europe

Caroline Lucas says Brexit would threaten UK’s environmental protection and rights at work
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I generally agree with your frequent point that countries should step back from the wanton destruction caused to the planet by globalisation, but there are some issues that require supranational bodies, and body in the locale is the EU. And it looks like it is the only one that still believes in liberal democracy, which is good.
Click to expand...
Brexit being a massive mistake is a subjective viewpoint. There's little objective evidence of it being a success or failure, rather, what is truly remarkable about Brexit is, given it involved unravelling 40+ years of constitutional and economic integration in the space of a few years, how little measurable impact it has actually had. The UK economy, far from being the clusterf*ck many predicted, has consistently outperformed all analytical predictions, including the lastest above forecast growth figures. More and more the "Brexit is bad economically" is resembling a classic group think exercise in that economic analysts started with the view that Brexit would be bad economically and therefore all analytical models were adjusted accordingly only for "UK economy outperforms expectations" to become an almost quarterly headline over the last few years.

The reality of Brexit is that it gives you certain things, such as independent policy, and takes away certain things (such as freedom of movement and other things). The UK always was the most likely of any EU memberstate to be able to leave the EU relatively pain-free, as we always contributed more in than we took out according to most analyses (and were one of only 3 memberstates to do so) and we were the only EU memberstate to do the majority of its trade with non-EU states. And so being a member of the bloc and giving up an independent trade policy always made the least sense for the UK when compared to anyone else in the bloc.
 
I would disagree with most of that, but to be frank, I have no interest in flogging this dead horse again. The arguments have been made and countered ad nauseam on here over the years (maybe before your time).
 
Rorschach said:
I would disagree with most of that, but to be frank, I have no interest in flogging this dead horse again. The arguments have been made and countered ad nauseam on here over the years (maybe before your time).
Click to expand...
"Brexit is a massive mistake"

*someone else argues that it isn't*

"I have no interest in discussing this dead horse"
 
Rorschach said:
Now you have it.
Click to expand...
I think what people that argue about Brexit fail to see is the subjectivity of their own arguments. You talk about arguments being made and countered. Countering an argument with a different perspective doesn't actually invalidate the other argument. It's merely your opinion versus another opinion. It's up to each individual to weigh up arguments and form their own view. The facts of brexit were that there were 17.4 million people that were right and 16.1 million who were also right. But democracy determines that the 17.4 million people get to enact their version of the truth.
 
Whether Brexit is a success or not, (and tbh worthwhile arguments of whether it is or not are probably 10/15 years down the road), one has to consider that in any fleshing out of a plan or roadmap if we exited (not saying this happened btw:)), couldn't be expected to foresee a once in a century pandemic, war in Europe and an orange unhinged dufus being leader of the 'free world'.
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
Whether Brexit is a success or not, (and tbh worthwhile arguments of whether it is or not are probably 10/15 years down the road), one has to consider that in any fleshing out of a plan or roadmap if we exited (not saying this happened btw:)), didn't foresee a once in a century pandemic, war in Europe and an orange unhinged dufus being leader of the 'free world'.
Click to expand...

No of course which I do agree with, but any decision should have been made to make the country fundamentally more stable than it was which would make it better equipped in those things. I think ultimately given the decision was made now, GHod knows how many years ago there is a certain level of adaptability, you have to or you die, so businesses are doing alot more heavy lifting with costs and paperwork, I speak frequently with and on industry panels with independent hotels and chains about the impact of Brexit and for anyone with a supply chain of produce and staff its been an absolute blood bath.

But I agree to an extent, the true value will be known n 15/20 years and much of that will be down to innovation in companies to roll with it and create their own opportunities rather than benefits of Brexit opportunities being evident
 
Amazing that Labour shut down a coal mine in Cumbria then import the same coal to keep British Steel running. There's no joined up policy on anything.
 
P.D. said:
Amazing that Labour shut down a coal mine in Cumbria then import the same coal to keep British Steel running. There's no joined up policy on anything.
Click to expand...
Decided not to build, not closed. That's a big difference.

Coal is on rapid global phase out, so even Sclamhorpe will need to move to something else pretty soon. Port Talbot are getting next generation electric ones fitted at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back